Open Knowledge

Defining Open in Open Data, Open Content and Open Knowledge
04 April 2014 by Herb Lainchbury

Previous call notes.  Next call 2014-04-10 (2nd Thursday of even months) at 15:00 UTC.


  • Andrew Stott
  • Herb Lainchbury
  • Rufus Pollock
  • Mike Linksvayer


  • goals for 2014

  • review status of OD 2.0 as I feel we’ve not had sufficient time to discuss. we’ll have to try to keep this high level as it’s easy to get stuck in the details, which may be better discussed on the list.
  • heading review - Herb
  • intro - Mike
  • do we know what’s missing / problematic areas / areas of agreement?
  • next steps?
  • I would like a discussion of ideas around non-proliferation of Licenses. Is the OD 2.0 expected to address this? Is there something else we can be doing (refine the process, make it available to publishers).
  • do we want to continue to hold off on further license decisions until OD 2.0 is published? (BC and AB)


  • do we want to continue to hold off on further license decisions until OD 2.0 is published? (BC and AB) Summary


  • [Andrew] Section 4.1 review and then email the list
  • [Herb] Section 3.1 + 3.2 review and update (then email the list)
  • [Mike] Conformance process (recommendations)
  • [Andrew] ping potential PhDs re being “Open Definition Secretary” and overseeing license review process (checking on new licenses coming in, emailing the list, doing a first pass check (optional))

Discusions of v2.0 Open Definition

Current version

  • HL talked about how v2.0 calls for the separation of the test of the license from the test of a particular work.
  • like the way the works section
  • HL to edit section 3 (license) and make a recommendation
  • AS to edit section 4 (works)
  • we can discuss these things on the list
  • Delete 3.1.7 on privacy (invite kfogel to state the case for the privacy clause)

Agreed on having separate documents for Conformance process (see action}

All the stuff from recommendations in current open def draft (s3.3) Emphasize may be strictly conformant but will be heavily recommended against [Future] Commentary - e.g. privacy stuff

  • Consider adding a list of licenses (to the repo) that are in the queue to be looked at
  • RP proposed a license conformance secretary role


  • - FYI Notes re v2.0 possible headings

    1. Introduction

    2. Terminology

    3. Open Licenses 3.1 Required Permissions 3.1.1 Use 3.1.2 Redistribution 3.1.3 Reuse (formerly Modification - I may have missed why this was being renamed, maybe there is good reason) 3.1.4 Separation (a new required permission?) 3.1.5 Compilation (the positive form of v1.1 clause 11) 3.1.6 Application (formerly Application to Any Purpose) 3.1.7 Privacy

    3.2 Acceptable Conditions 3.2.1 Attribution 3.2.2 Integrity 3.2.3 Access (formerly Access and Restrictions - not sure what this is for, downstream work? for later discussion)

    3.3 Recommendations for Open Licenses 3.3.1 Reuse (formerly Reusable) 3.3.2 Compatible 3.3.3 Coverage 3.3.4 Understandable

    1. Open Works 4.1 Mandatory Conditions 4.1.1 Open License (formerly License and Licensing Information) 4.1.2 Available (formerly Access) 4.1.3 Open Format (formerly Absence of Technological Restrictions)

    4.2 Recommendations for Open Works